Some Radiological Dating with Stoichiometry

  • Thread starter Thread starter phost
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stoichiometry
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the age of a rock sample based on the presence of argon-40 and potassium-40. The key question is how much potassium-40 would need to be present for the rock to be 1.3 billion years old, given the amount of argon-40 detected. Participants clarify that potassium-40 decays into argon-40 through beta minus decay, and they discuss the assumption that all argon-40 originates from this decay process. It is noted that the total number of atoms of potassium and argon remains constant, and their masses do not need to sum to the total sample weight due to their small proportions. The conversation emphasizes understanding the decay process and the implications for the rock's history.
phost
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
It's kind of baffling me when I'm encountering this question in this sub-chapter. It's just unusual. So I really need your help :D

Homework Statement


If a rock sample was found to contain 1.16 × 10-7 mol of
argon-40, how much potassium-40 (t1/2 = 1.3 × 109 yr)
would also have to be present for the rock to be 1.3 × 109
years old? See assumption in Problem 14.84.

And the problem 14.84 question is ...

A 500 mg sample of rock was found to have 2.45 × 10-6
mol of potassium-40 (t1/2 = 1.3 × 109 yr) and 2.45 ×
10-6 mol of argon-40. How old was the rock? (Hint: What
assumption is made about the origin of the argon-
40?)


Homework Equations


k = In 2/t1/2

The Attempt at a Solution


I just find out that the both K and Ar in periodic table have a closely enough molecular mass, which is 40 g/mol (39,1 for K and 39,95 for Ar). But it just weird when the molecular mass is multiplied with each moles of Ar and K to find mass, because it doesn't add up for 500 mg. Also I don't have any idea what does the t1/2 works for. Of course we could find the rate constant from the equation before for it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What happens if you assume all the argon-40 originates from the potassium-40 beta minus decay? How much potassium had to be present in the rock for that much to decay?
 
daveb said:
What happens if you assume all the argon-40 originates from the potassium-40 beta minus decay? How much potassium had to be present in the rock for that much to decay?

Well, if I assume that, it is plausible because potassium-40 will lose 1 electron and becoming argon-40 with beta minus decay. But I still don't understand it, was the assumption says the rock originally a pure potassium-40 back then and becoming argon-40 in the whole time? Or is it in the first time the potassium-40 had 4.9x10-6 mole and in the meantime because of the beta minus decay it changed and split into two parts, the half of the potassium-40 with 2.45x10-6 mole and the other half with the same mole but the argon-40? My apologize if I don't get the idea.
 
Potassium and argon are only a small part of the sample, so their masses don't have to add to 500 mg.

Or is it in the first time the potassium-40 had 4.9x10-6 mole and in the meantime because of the beta minus decay it changed and split into two parts, the half of the potassium-40 with 2.45x10-6 mole and the other half with the same mole but the argon-40?

That's what would happen exactly after half time. We assume rock was melted before and degassed, so all argon it contains now comes from the potassium-40 decay. And total number of atoms of both elements is constant.
 
Last edited:
Borek said:
Potassium and argon are only a small part of the sample, so their masses don't have to add to 500 mg.

Or is it in the first time the potassium-40 had 4.9x10-6 mole and in the meantime because of the beta minus decay it changed and split into two parts, the half of the potassium-40 with 2.45x10-6 mole and the other half with the same mole but the argon-40?

That's what would happen exactly after half time. We assume rock was melted before and degassed, so all argon it contains now comes from the potassium-40 decay. And total number of atoms of both elements is constant.

I hadn't considered that. That was really helpful, thanks a lot :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top